Their solicitor, Jenny Afia, told Mr Justice Nicklin at the High Court today that the story, captioned “Elton’s Dog Did This To My Girl”, also appeared on the Sun’s website.

It was subsequently picked up by a number of other publishers including the Mail Online, the Metro, the Mirror and the Evening Standard, Afia added.

She said the story described an incident at the couple’s home and claimed a child on a play date had been subjected to a serious attack by their dog which left her with “Freddy Krueger-like injuries”.

The story added that Sir Elton and Furnish had failed to make any attempt to find out how the young girl was following the incident, despite being aware of what happened.

“This allegation is false,” Afia said. “The truth is that the injuries were not serious, and the claimants, far from ignoring the incident, made several inquiries about the girl’s welfare to her father and nanny. Each time it was confirmed the girl was fine.”

She added: “I am pleased to say that the newspaper has now accepted unequivocally that this allegation was false and seriously defamatory.

“As a result, it has agreed now to apologise to Sir Elton John and David Furnish, and to pay significant damages as well as to reimburse their legal costs.”

NGN’s solicitor, Jeffrey Smele, said: “The defendant offers its apology to the claimants, and is pleased that the matter has been amicably resolved.”

Explore these topics

Given that Libel , Slander = Defamation proceedings are very severely restricted by
claimants’ ability to fund any action; given that English Courts, especially the Queens Bench division of the High Court which is the court for defamation actions, is not transparent on most of the administrative decisions made in the name of the QBD, where is the “legal forum” that people without big money can seek and actually receive due and just remedies?

The slogan “Taking Back Control” is based on the assumption that when “not fettered” by “external, foreign” “powers” influencing the behaviour and practice of
“British Courts” and the “course of British law”.

Yet there is no accountability to the public by the Courts at all tiers and levels.

Press Gazette Items such as the present one about Elton John and his partner is absolutely unrepresentative of the realties going on every single sitting day in the
“Libel Court” .

Thousands of claimants with very string evidential and factual justifications for remedies are obstructed routinely by the High Court.

What “control” do they enjoy over what law?

Both “Fleet Street” (which titles the BBC collectively calls “National”) and the BBC and other organs of the “mainstream” “British Media” HIDE almost all the decisions, behaviour and BIAS of the Courts bureaucracies.

Those amount to more violations of electors’ rights and claims then ALL the EU directives put together have done in the past decades.

The “law courts”, the licensed law trading “profession”, the “law schools” are two centuries behind the times.

No sign in anything Theresa May has “told” the Eu today or in anything her Conservative Party “rivals” have said or suggested even hints at any problems that
“British law bureaucracies” contain agent millions of ordinary British people.

The recently retired President of the “British Supreme Court”, David Neuberger was hurriedly “befriended” by the then newly appointed “Sos Ministry of Justice”, David Lidington to feature in a pre-Chequers orchestration of promoting the pro-Brexiteering narrative.

Here is how Martin Bentham of the Evening Standard reported Neuberger on 4 July 2017:

The country’s most senior judge has declared that Brexit could boost London’s status as the world’s legal centre by allowing the courts to respond more swiftly to emerging worldwide issues.
Lord Neuberger, the president of the Supreme Court, said that once British judges were “left to our own common law devices” they would “be able to react more quickly and freely to developments in our fast-changing world”.

That plug was not consistent with the evidence of the role, record, behaviour over centuries of the courts based in the “world’s legal centre”.